flybase_search

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden — and it does disclose that the term can be a gene name, function, or symbol and that a matching list is returned. It does not disclose matching semantics (fuzzy vs. exact), result limits, pagination, or no-match behavior, but it also does not contradict any annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the English statement, and every clause adds some content — the Chinese sentence repeats the English but contributes the return-field detail and purpose. The bilingual duplication is mildly redundant rather than harmful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-paramter keyword-search tool with an output schema documenting the return shape, the description adequately covers input semantics, scope, and intended use. It lacks an explicit sibling distinction from flybase_gene and any limit/error expectations, but nothing critical is missing for correct basic invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the sole 'term' paramter, and it does: specifying that term accepts gene names, functions, or symbols adds real meaning beyond the bare 'string' type. It stops short of giving format/case examples, but the paramter is otherwise well clarified.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb+resource+method ('Search Drosophila genes by keyword') and adds return details (gene ID, symbol, name) and the discovery use case. This clearly distinguishes it from ID-lookup and other-organism siblings like flybase_gene, wormbase_search, and hgnc_search.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase '用于基因发现' (for gene discovery) implies a discovery-oriented use case, and 'Drosophila' implicitly routes the agent away from wormbase/rgd/hgnc searches. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. flybase_gene (likely ID-based lookup), no exclusions, and no statement of what not to use it for, so the agent must infer the boundary.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.